I agree completely. My point is not that we don't need any planning,
but that the planing is scoped per plugin.
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Jeremy Cline <jeremy(a)jcline.org> wrote:
> On 11/08/2017 09:24 AM, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
>> Here is why I don't think we need to have all the data collection
>> requirements up front. Clevis is designed to be very modular. A data
>> collector plugin is just an executable that outputs a JSON blob. A
>> corresponding server-side plugin parses this data and stores it in the
>> database in an efficient way to be later queried.
>
> I certainly don't expect to walk away from this with everything everyone
> wants (and nothing people don't want), but it doesn't hurt to spend a
> little time up-front thinking about this.
>
> Since we're going to be putting this in a database and hopefully we have
> a lot of data, thinking about what that data will look like now will
> save us and those who have to maintain this system in production a great
> deal of pain. It looks like that current implementation uses MongoDB,
> which could either be a good choice or a bad choice depending on what
> the data schema looks like. If it is a good choice, we need to be able
> to prove that since Fedora Infrastructure uses PostgreSQL for pretty
> much everything and they probably won't be thrilled about maintaining
> another database.
>
> If we opt for PostgreSQL that means we really do have to model our data
> (I think is a good thing to do even with something like MongoDB) so we
> should have a pretty solid idea of what it looks like.
>
>
> --
> Jeremy Cline
> XMPP: jeremy(a)jcline.org
> IRC: jcline
>